Is the purpose of law not to have a healthy society where the individual and the society as a whole have the best life experience? This requires a few
things, including input from both the members of society and also input from science and empirical testing.
What is empirical testing and science? Well, empirical testing is simple - even in areas like physics, someone comes up with a theory, and then that
theory is tested - if it can be replicated in the laboratory, then it becomes more valid than before. Science is the idea that experts in their field
know the interactions that happen in their field better than politicians or emotional power brokers.
If someone is making a law that covers an area they don't understand while not listening to expert testimony or reading the factual data, they are
likely to be enacting a law that is going to result in unhealthy situations for people and society.
What happens if someone enacts laws that benefit them at the expense of others below them because they have gained enough money and power to be sloppy
and inaccurate in their en-action of laws? The more money and power someone has, the less they are held accountable to either those below them or to
the facts, data and expert testimony.
If a law is passed in a situation such as this, where there is the option for it to be passed in a more healthy manner, is this law just? If someone
knowingly forces a law though that goes against available expert testimony and against available data, is that law just?
Some issues to consider on the other side of this debate: What if the majority want a law that harms society or even themselves? But what if that
majority has been misinformed or manipulated about the facts and data?
In a free country, should we not be free to enact laws that make no sense? The rebuttal to this is no, because that limits the freedom of others while
simultaneously promoting destructive and unhealthy behavior through force of will.
What about enacting so many laws that it becomes hard to follow them in order to encourage a healthy society? In my opinion, that is a legitimate
Although at some time, a law has to be passed, and is it better to pass one with or without expert testimony, facts, and data when the three are
If people with money / power deliberately attempt to skew the data through manipulating it to obtain the result they want, and it affects the law, is
the law still just? What if the people skewing the laws are fundamentalists who answer to a higher power?
The questions in this last section are really meant to think about and discuss, part of the reason I put them there was to give discussion points on
edit on 05amSat, 05 Apr 2014 04:21:44 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)